Strategic Libertarianism

I am currently working on a book entitled Gutter Feminism: The
Rights of Whores which argues from a feminist perspective for the
decriminalization of prostitution. As part of the research, I am
interviewing and/or corresponding with over a hundred working
prostitutes. When discussing this project with libertarians, a
question constantly arises: Why do I focus on marginalized people and
unpopular issues as vehicles to express my libertarianism? Why don't
I write a more mainstream book, for example, on affirmative action
which will be more sympathetically received by a wider audience?
This question is a strategic one. And I believe it highlights a
weak point in the current libertarian approach to societal change,
which has become especially prevalent within the Libertarian Party.
This is the marked tendency to underplay or to silence discussion of
embarrassing civil liberties, such as the decriminalization of whores
and drugs.
There is a sense in which all libertarians approach victimless
crimes in the same manner. We agree that these are peaceful
activities in which government and law can serve no proper function.
Apart from this basic statement, however, approaches widely diverge.
The divergence is not so much apparent in the printed literature,
which is generally silent on unpopular causes. It is apparent in the
intangible attitudes of the movement, again especially within the
Libertarian Party.
Too often, the manner in which libertarians defend victimless
criminals is "I do not personally approve of prostitution/heroine. I
would not participate in it. But everyone has the right to be a
revolting human being. Let's move on to economics." This
condemnatory defense places the speaker's sense of disgust on the
same level -- if not a higher one -- as his or her recognition of the
self-ownership of the people being persecuted by the state. Among the
professions I find personally disgusting is undertaking. But
libertarians would find it bizarre if I were to defend a
state-persecuted funeral parlor in the following manner: 'I do not
personally approve of undertaking. I would not participate in it. But
undertakers have the right to be revolting human beings."
Libertarians do not defend tax resisters because they are nice
people with laudable lifestyles. They defend them because they are
persecuted by the state. Equally, we do not defend or refuse to
defend whores because they are either wonderful or contemptible
people: they are victims of the state. If taxation is theft, then
arresting a whore is kidnapping. Just as libertarians condemn the IRS
for the suffering it causes, so too should we rail against local Vice
Departments for the agony they inflict.
Two things are at issue in the condemnatory defense of civil
liberties -- for example, the liberties of a whore. First, the
speaker's personal preferences. Second, the prostitute's right of
self-ownership. Although the speaker's sexual preferences have moral
import, they are entirely irrelevant to a political analysis of
prostitution. Indeed, it could be argued that the issues that make
you the most uncomfortable are precisely the ones you should speak
out on: they are the litmus test of how seriously you take a
commitment to liberty. Are you for choice, or only for the choices of
which you approve? After all, libertarianism is simply the political
philosophy that says all relationships should be voluntary.
Otherwise stated, liberty is 'freedom of choice'. By their
discomfort in defending unpopular causes, some libertarians reveal a
greater commitment to a particular 'choice' than to 'freedom'.
Yet, because of personal aversion or from fear of how a defense
of prostitution would be received, libertarians often stick to
economic issues and abandon victimless 'criminals' to their own
devices.
In the midst of this analysis, a valid strategic point arises.
Given that there are many injustices and time is limited, which
injustice should receive attention? Economic issues, it is argued,
should be preferred because they have mass appeal. For example, since
everyone pays taxes, a campaign against raising tax levels is likely
to resonate happily in most people's minds. By contrast, a campaign
to decriminalize prostitution has far more limited appeal. This is an
argument on the relative value of allocating resources.
I contend that unpopular civil liberties have a marked practical
advantage over mass-appeal issues because they bypass one of
libertarianism's main strategic problems. The first hurdle that
libertarianism faces is to convince people that the government and
government power is invalid. The man-on-the-street may dislike paying
taxes, but he does not fundamentally question the legitimacy of
Congress to levy them in some form. He may agree that this particular
Congress is a travesty, but his solution is to elect a different one,
not to abolish the institution. Because his oppression is the same as
what his neighbors experience, the common man is likely to view it as
the status quo and grumble against 'tax resisters' who attempt to
escape the 'duties' of every American. As long as the oppression is
not too extreme, a law that makes everyone suffer equally can easily
assume the aura of fairness.
No similar aura or problem is encountered in dealing with
prostitutes. Most of them have had direct and brutal experience with
the enforcement end of the state. They don't have to be convinced
that laws are oppressive and that the system is corrupt. They are the
sort of 'special interest' group that is remarkably open to the ideas
of anyone who has a sincere interest in correcting the wrongs being
done to them. And, remember, the left has done very well through
championing special interest groups, like minorities and gays.
Indeed, it could be argued that special interest groups are the
backbone of Clinton's support.
Much of the argument for strategically de-emphasizing civil
liberties comes from the drive toward political power, as expressed
through the Libertarian Party. For those who seek to use the
political means, issues like prostitution are an acute handicap. The
political means requires impressive vote totals and this means
courting respectability. It means distancing the movement from issues
which might alienate the common man. It means offering condemnatory
defenses of sticky civil liberties, if any defense is offered at all.
Too many libertarians wish to be respectable radicals. They
don't want to face the hostility and hard arguments that accompanies
a true defense of liberty -- economic and civil. They prefer to
remain with economic or public policy stands. In doing so,
libertarians are becoming difficult to distinguish from 'republicans
in a hurry'.

A contributing editor to Liberty magazine, Wendy McElroy has
published widely in feminism beginning in 1983 with Freedom,
Feminism and the State (CATO) and most recently in 1995 with XXX: A
Woman's Right to Pornography (St. Martin's Press). Her articles have
appeared in such diverse publications as National Review and
Penthouse. Her 'day' job is writing and editing documentaries, some
of which have been recorded by Walter Cronkite, George C. Scott and
Harry Reasoner.

Next to advance to the next article, or
Previous to return to the previous article, or
Index to return to The Libertarian
Enterprise, Number 10, July, 1996.